Can Ron Paul Win as a Third Party Candidate?

In a new poll, out yesterday, 7 out of 10 Republicans and right leaning independent voters believe Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee for President. (Click here for that poll.) Does that mean it’s over for Congressman Ron Paul? I think it is safe to say it is probably a long shot he will be the Republican nominee, but what about a third party run? Can Ron Paul win as a third party candidate? I say that is much less of a long shot, and here’s why.

Let me first say, Dr. Paul has repeatedly said that he has no interest in running as a third party candidate. I do not know (or have talked to) anyone in his campaign. This is my objective analysis and nothing more. Ron Paul as a third party candidate would be much different than the third party candidates of the past. Conservative presidential candidate Ross Perot of the 1992 and 1996 elections predominantly took votes away from the Republican candidates. In 1992, national exit polls had Perot splitting the Republican and Democrat vote equally, but it was not split equally in every state. (Click here for more on this.) A president is voted in by winning each state’s Electoral College votes. It’s a winner take all game, so every state gives a certain number to the winner of each state. Also, Perot spent millions hammering Bush in the 1992 primaries; so, Perot mostly had a negative effect on the Republicans. The ultra-liberal Ralph Nader’s third party campaign in 2000 took votes away from Al Gore, the Democrat. More than 97,000 voted for Nader in Florida alone. Gore would have easily won the election and Florida if Nader would have not run.

Then there is Ron Paul. He would, no doubt, run on a Libertarian type ticket. Paul would take votes from Republicans that think Romney is not conservative enough. After all, he has, so far, come in second in the caucuses and primaries, but that is just with the GOP. He would take a large percentage of the 40% of people who call themselves “Independent” voters. Paul also does well with young voters. In Iowa and New Hampshire, nearly half of all GOP voters under 30 voted for Dr. Paul. He would probably do well with Democrats in the same group. He may be booed in South Carolina by the old guard for his anti-war policies, but the young, who would have to fight the wars, think his message is on target.

As far as liberal Democrats go, Paul would carve a significant amount out of President Obama’s base. Some of the most stinging criticism of the President has come from his own party. You can’t get much more left leaning than the ACLU, and that organization said the most recent signing of the “Indefinite Detention” bill by the President basically guts the Bill of Rights. The ACLU says, “The bill contains dangerous, sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provisions.”The ACLU has vowed to fight this unconstitutional legislation all the way to the Supreme Court. Even MSNBC’s Rachael Maddow, a self-proclaimed liberal, criticized the President on this issue. (Click here and hear her nearly 8 minute rant from early December 2011.) The President also said on 60 Minutes, “. . . some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn’t illegal.”This statement is absurd because the meltdown of 2008 is 70 times worse than the S&L crisis 20 years ago when 1,000 financial elites were convicted of crimes. Zero criminal prosecutions of financial elites happened in the wake of the 2008 meltdown. I think it is safe to say Ron Paul would take some very disgruntled Democrats away from Obama.

On the other hand, GOP candidate Romney would get very few votes from Democrats because, after all, there is little difference between him and Obama on this issue. Romney thinks “corporations are people.” Romney and the GOP would like you to think the 2008 meltdown is “all the government’s fault” for making the poor defenseless banks loan money to poor people who couldn’t pay it back. That is a crock! Don’t take my word for it. Listen to William Black, former bank regulator and professor of both law and economics, on how zero financial elites have been prosecuted for crime. (Click here for one of many stories.) Remember, this is what Occupy Wall Street is all about. Obama and Romney will get very few votes from these folks.

So, Congressman Paul could do something that no other third party candidate has done in recent history– take votes from left, right and center. This is why both Democrats and Republicans fear and loath him. I have noted several Ron Paul snubs on both the left and the right, but Democrats seem especially terrified. Can you imagine Obama debating Dr. Paul on civil liberties, true Wall Street reform, budget deficits or war? After the New Hampshire primary, liberal commentator Lawrence O’Donnell said John Huntsman was the “real second” when, in fact, Ron Paul was by a significant margin. “Daily Show” comedian Jon Stewart rants about this stupid and biased comment. Please watch, it’s funny.

Huntsman was doing so well he dropped out of the race before the next primary in South Carolina. Dana Bash, also, showed her true biased feelings on CNN in early January when she said she was “worried . . . Ron Paul will continue on long into the spring and summer.” (Click here to hear the comments of CNN reporter Dana Bash for yourself.) So, why would Congressman Paul “continue on long into the spring and summer” even if he would likely not win the GOP nomination? Do you know of any third party primaries out there? Of course not. Paul would keep campaigning just to get press and gain votes. Dr. Paul would love to narrow the field down to just Romney, and he has the money and campaign organization to do it. When it’s mathematically impossible for Paul to get the GOP nomination, I expect a third party run. At 76, I can’t imagine this man of conviction to just pull up stakes and leave the presidential race to the two corporate candidates put forth by the Democrats and Republicans.

About the Author

Greg Hunter

Greg is the producer and creator of USAWatchdog.com. The site’s slogan is “analyzing the news to give you a clear picture of what’s really going on.” The site will keep an eye on the government, your financial interests and cut through the media spin. USAWatchdog.com is neither Democrat nor Republican, Liberal or Conservative. Before creating and producing the site, Greg spent nearly 9 years as a network and investigative correspondent. He worked for ABC News and Good Morning America for nearly 6 years. Most recently, Greg worked for CNN for shows such as Paula Zahn Now, American Morning and various CNN business shows.

Comments

iknowbetter01/18/2012 •

Rocky Anderson just announced his 3rd party candidacy under the Justice Party label. Will he do better than a Ralph Nder?

I think you are exactly right.In a three way race Paul would need to average 34% to win.I am not sure if he would get that if the race began today but fortunately it doesn’t.I think by summer the economy is going to be worse and Paul is only going to keep gaining in popularity.If he gets the republican nod and gets a good vice pic like maybe Judge Napolitano he would destroy Obama.If he goes third party and jumped on a ticket with Gary Johnson that too would be fantastic and would be a good chance to win.

Timely written Greg and many postulate as you have. But I take Dr. Paul at his word that he is not interested in a third party run. Having said that political pressure can be very strong and Dr. Paul does not act like your ordinary “just get along” republican. It would be interesting to see the two heads on the same monster (democrats & republican parties) yelling foul. But we in the real world learning to make due with less and less can at least dream about such a scenario.

I believe Dr. Paul is more of a sign of growing awareness that both parties are just one in the same, a political class who represents themselves along with the elite to whom they serve, and will never change, only get worst. As this awareness grows the long maligned viable third party candidate may be given root. As I said, timely article and well appreciated.

This article elucidates the sentiments that I have posted for some weeks on various sites. Some in the media who know Ron Paul personally have said that they are doubtful that he will run on a third party ticket, but I’m not so sure of that.

I have seen it bandied about by the lame stream that he’s jockeying for position for his son Rand’s political advantage, but I chalk that up to a combination of their hubris(Rand is the able bodied master of his own ship) and their wishful thinking that they can convince Dr. Paul of such a strategy in the hope that he will bow out in favor of their darling, Romney, as if they have given him any reason to trust their word in 30+ years of battling them. Not to mention their obvious inability to comprehend what motivates him, for which I suppose they can’t be blamed, in light of the caliber of politician they are accustomed to associating with.

Somehow, after my decade or so of supporting him and his Campaign for Liberty, I feel like I have gotten somewhat of a feel for the man, and unless I am an abysmal judge of character, I believe that it would belie everything he stands for to decline the very real possibility of running and winning as a third party candidate, should the republican establishment be successful in disenfranchising the sufferage of those who have supported him. It would represent cowardice in the face of the enemy to him, and when he introduced himself as the champion of the constitution, he made the committment to those of us who have supported him as well as to all the people of America.

I also believe that he is no polyanna with regard to his relationship with the republican party. If it refuses to represent its constituency in deference of the moneyed interests he will labor under no illusions as to any notion of loyalty to them. His loyalty is to those who have supported the idea of his candidacy, and to the sanctity of the document to which he has sworn his solemn alleigance. This is not negotiable for him, and this is why I believe he has declined to rule out a third party run. I support him 100% in this, should he make such a decision.

I should say, though, that I don’t think it will be nescessary for this discussion to be any more than speculative because I believe that Dr. Paul will win the nomination, and then the presidency. Here’s why: Despite seemingly insurmountable opposition from every tentacle of the leviathan astride our republic’s back the candidacy of Dr. Paul is in ascendancy. It represents the proverbial “Idea who’s time has come” and as has been observed, when the forces of the opposition to enslavement push back with a unified purpose, the would-be tyrants will recede into the shadows to bide their time and lick their wounds. The money power will rightly recognize that their elaborate bilateral comintern is in danger of complete disarray and dissolution and should they fail to heed the forces in motion in our country today, they risk the loss of their hegemony and possibly their own heads. I submit that they will blink and are even now blinking in light of the public outrage of among other things their almost unanimous passage of the NDAA. This is the straw that has caused the floodgates to burst with protestation pealing from every quarter and agency. Their position is exposed, their holes in the ground nor their lofty aeries to be a secure redoubt from the retribution due them should they fail to repent of their hubris and revert to their old standby philosophy of ” tis a far far better thing to run away, and live to fight another day”.

Their machinery for their technological tyranny is largely in place but it is not accepted and battle tested enough for them to be confident enough of its efficacy to be able to bring it to bear, so I predict that their opposition to the forces of liberty will evaporate as the mists of a summer morning and once again freedom will ring over the hills and valleys of this blessed land. But only so long, as our founders warned as we are vigilant and jealous of our liberty, and our founding documents.

Samantha! Thank you for your advocacy. As for the rumors you speak of, I believe they are just that. Pipe dreams floated by would be matchmakers in the media as a way of rationalizing their treatment of Ron Paul. It’s part of their cockamamie negotiating process. It goes something like this: Their usual veiled threats, after such an overature is floated suddenly become more concrete and overt, Ron Paul, if he stands his ground will rebuff their overature and they will sweeten the pot, etc., etc., etc.Ron Paul’s wild card that they have no conception of is that he can’t be bought.His opponents are laboring under the mistaken assumption that everyone has his price. Also he’s got nerves of steel. I honestly believe that he could be a world class poker player. So I believe that his strategy is to keep raising the stakes(ala NDAA repeal legislation, etc) while sitting pat, gaining political capital and relying on us and the message to keep growing his base, keeping the heat on his easily discreditable GOP opponents, whittle them down one by one, let them whittle each other down, till they’re all whittled down to nubs and he’s holding all the cards. It’s a winning strategy, but it depends a certain amount on all of us keeping our poker faces and sticking to the game plan. If he were to push away from the table to go third party so early in the primaries it would require a complete reshuffling which would be a waste of the cards he is already holding a large number of. There’s plenty of time before the libertarian convention, I think it’s in August, so rather than turn over the table and letting the chips fall where they may, it may surprise you how fast his strategy will clean out everybody else at the table, til there’s no question of a need for a 3rd party run, or even if there is, by then his base will be so built up it’ll be a piece of cake. That’s what has the honchos so terrified that they’re floating all these proposals, They don’t have an answer for the popularity of him or his message. So take heart, we’re going to win this. Even should the unthinkable happen, this is about liberty, others will pick up the standard, believe me, they don’t want to deal with a president Ventura or a president Rand Paul. Or any one of a hundred that might be a lot harsher than a polite country doctor.

oh, one thing I forgot to mention, regardless of the cards and political capital that Ron amasses we’ve got to keep pouring fuel into his tank. We can’t let this thing die on the vine We’ve all got to become guerilla fundraising managers since we can’t countenance corporate funding with its attendant corruption and quid pro quo. That means instilling conviction in those reading the blogs you post on, and telling your friends and family how proud they would be if they got off of a measely 20 bucks to invest in their future prosperity, I mean walk up to people in the street, or in the store, people with yellow ribbons on their cars. Tell them how they can help put the troops’ no. 1 investment over the top. Be creative The power of getting someone to invest even a little is astounding, because then they have an investment! They will add to it to feed its chance of paying off, they will enlist others in the cause of its growth,they will invest their time and energy in it and they are darn sure going to go and vote for it on election day. Now you understand the genius of Dr. Paul’s vision. Anyway, you get the idea. just tell em to go on over to RonPaul2012.com and put their money where their mouths are. Trust me. it’ll work

In a perfect world without election fraud, Paul could receive a majority of votes in a 3 man race. Alas, it is not a perfect world and with an uber-partisan DOJ, it is almost a given that with the tsunami of fraud coming in 2012, it is highly unlikely that there will even be investigation, much less prosecution.

In my mind, what happened in Houston in the last election cycle seems appropriate to discuss. Only briefly mentioned and then killed in the MSM, it appears that all of the voting machines had been pre-programmed, but before an investigation could start, the warehouse in which they were stored conveniently burned to the ground.

Then too, is the push back against voter ID laws, when all states that have them are more than willing to provide a free ID to those who do not have a passport, driver’s license, etc.

I wrote this piece back in 2007 but never published it. It is still as valid today as it was then.

The Weakness of Modern Republicans.

I must say that I have long been dismayed by the Republican Party having falling into a semantic trap laid by the Democrats and the mainstream media. That being the contention that the terms “republic” and “democracy” are somehow indistinguishable in meaning and freely interchangeable.

That such a fallacious claim is not confronted demonstrates that at best, they don’t understand, or at worst, they don’t want the voting public to understand that the American Constitution exists not only to protect us from the tyranny of dictators and kings but to protect us from the dangers presented by the manipulation of democracy by the kind of emotional demagoguery that has become the stock and trade of the Democrat Party. (and all to many Republicans)

By accepting this premise we become trapped into believing that “plurality” is somehow the be all and end all in the formulation and implementation of public policy. Such a notion would have the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.

The Constitution established our nation as a Republic, not a parliamentary democracy, and for that we should be thankful. This is demonstrated in our “Pledge of Allegiance” and by the fact that our military and elected officials swear loyalty to that Constitution, not to an individual, a political party, or a transitory elected government.

Thomas Jefferson is often held up as the spiritual father of the Democrat party, yet it is this same Jefferson to whom we owe perhaps the greatest debt for the fact that our nation is a Constitutional Republic, not a parliamentary democracy. Jefferson was not present at the Constitutional Convention; he was Minister to France at the time. Upon his return he quickly pointed out that the document as proposed, was deficient in its lack of enumerations as to what the new government would be prohibited from doing, i.e. the need to place strict limitations on the exercise of democracy. Thus we have our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. These amendments delineate specific rights that “shall not” be infringed by government regardless of what a democratic majority, elected officials or the public may demand or desire.

Neither did Jefferson raise objections to the manner proscribed for the election of our President, namely the system of the Electoral College. The Founding Fathers clearly recognized that we are not a homogenous nation. Political perspectives, social attitudes and perceptions of what is required of government vary greatly from person to person, State to State and region to region. This is as true today as it was in the 1780’s. Herein lie the foundations of not just the Bill or Rights, the Electoral College system, the Supreme Court and the U.S. Senate, but the Constitution’s philosophical guidance of our nation as a republic rather than a democracy. It is these very institutions that protect us from the tyranny of either the majority of citizens over the minority, of a group of large populous states over the smaller less populous ones or of one region over another.

So it would appear then that the founding “Democrat” better understood the dangers of social democracy than those who would claim to be his inheritors. The wisdom of his insight was quickly borne witness too by the chaos and unbridled bloodletting that came be known as the French Revolution.

It is not a mistake that our Constitution grants greater powers and responsibilities to the Senate than it does to the House of Representatives. No one could rationally argue that the Senate is a wholly democratic institution. Yes its members are elected by voting majorities from each of there respective States and its final decisions are reached by the votes of a majority of its members, but the vote of a Senator from Vermont or Wyoming carries the same weight as the vote of a Senator from California or Texas. So that if examined in terms of representing the populations of those States it is not so democratic after all. It was not intended to be. So it is also with the structure of the Electoral College. Nowhere does the Constitution bind the Electors to the majority of votes cast in their respective States. Nor should they be. They are only bound to vote in accordance to what their conscience tells them is best for the nation as a whole.

Would the Democrats argue that the Senate be done away with because it is “undemocratic?” I think not, for to do so would put their leading spokesman out of a job. It was the Founding Fathers vision the House of Representatives was to be bound to the will of the people, and that the Senate, The Supreme Court and the Electoral College was to be bound to logical discourse and reasoned debate guided only by the need for the preservation of the Constitution.

So then we must ask ourselves what insights and visions led our Founding Fathers to bequeath us such undemocratic institutions? How do they help us preserve our Republic?

For myself, I have no doubts that it was their hope that carefully defined and limited democratic methods would serve us well, and for the most part they have. But they also recognized that in times of crisis or when the nation was closely divided, when inflamed political passions and unreasoned or uninformed opinion and demagoguery might hold sway, there must exist safety valves, vehicles whereby once again a few individuals engaged in logical discourse, reasoned debate, careful examination of law the Constitution and of their own consciences might right the Ship of State and bring the nation back to an even keel. They were right then and they are still right today.

Yet all this said, in speech after speech we here Presidents (past and present) talk of spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world, without any mention of the necessity of defining freedom as structuring individual rights as the supreme tenant of any form of self-government. Fortunately we already have the structures in place, however tenuous they may have become over the years. I can only hope and pray that as the people of Afghanistan and Iraq and the rest of the Middle East build their new structures of government they to understand the meaning of freedom as well.

I couldn’t agree more. I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul, but I think they will steal the nomination from him by more of the same dirty tricks. Why is it that Romney keeps winning when a majority of Republicans don’t even want to vote for him, and all of the Twitters following the SC debate called him on the carpet for dodging questions? The military, banking, and corporate powers that run this country want him to continue to drive America into the ground so that they can profit on the way down.
A third party run for Dr. Paul would be ideal, and he may even have a good chance of winning by a landslide. As you noted, he has more support from the youth than any other candidate. As well, independents are the fastest-growing group in the country, owing to the disillusionment with both parties. Independents would vote for Dr. Paul as well.

Watching the media run as if a large bear walked into the room is truly entertaining. This was my prediction since last week. Dr. Ron Paul is very popular and the more they ignore him, the more popular he becomes. I do believe that the establishment will nominate Mittens and Dr. Paul will indeed run as a 3rd party candidate. The result will be tremendous, not only could he win big, but it could be the final nail in the coffin of the two party system, exposing them as the same head of the snake. But only manipulated votes will tell the tale.

I tend to agree with you Citizen in that nothing really ever changes as to who win or loses and, therefore, why vote with just two to choose from. Time will tell whether you are right or if a couple of more fictitious elections will be needed to wake most Americans up that their vote is worthless and our two party system has really been the weasel guarding the hen house.

Why doesn’t Santorum run under a third party? Why doesn’t he drop out?

When all of the talking heads told the public that Ronald Reagan was statistically unelectable as a Republican, why didn’t he run under a third party?

Most importantly, considering the track record and financial backers, why isn’t Romney running as a Democrat? Oh, never mind, that spot’s taken.

Ever hear about momentum? It would be interesting to see the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries repeated now that time has passed and momentum has built up. Today’s public polls are tomorrow’s history, that’s all.

It’s a long way to November, why marginalize Ron Paul after only 2 primaries? Oh yea, he’s unelectable (like Reagan).

Kudos for you Greg. I didn’t realize you were interactive here.
I am an older guy, who voted for Paul in 1988. I’m not a mindless “Paulbot” more like a very concerned citizen who considers myself as a patriot. As in patriotic, not Patriot Act.

I felt in 1988 things were not going in the right direction. Heck, well before then even. Ronald Reagan talked libertarian rhetoric but went the other way after elected. Reagan was a decent president though (in his first term) but didn’t truly follow-up with the real changes needed.

Regardless, it was the liberty message he espoused that got him elected the first time, when all the naysayers said he was unelectable. So I don’t think I’m alone in recognizing back then, that we were on a declining course and direction. he was ringing the bell and people were answering. I have to chuckle when I hear the other candidates comparing themselves to Reagan, when in fact only one is close, considering libertarian/small central government philosophies.

Did Reagan sell out? Sort of, yes. But his campaign message got a lot of people thinking and paved the way for what we now see in Paul. Paul’s problem is, his unpolished and quirky manner of speaking. I believe him to be of near-genius intelligence (or even genius) but he finds it difficult to utilize sound bites and audience teasers to get the media to notice. That’s the fodder the media find “news worthy” though (sadly).

Besides, the public should know by now, that the media is in the hip pockets of those who ply the puppet-leader’s strings. Paul’s lack of media attention has wised up a lot of people.

Do I believe that Ron Paul has a chance? Not an even chance, maybe even against all odds. But in the long run, when 300 million people decide to change course, it’s unlikely that anything can stop it.

Ron Paul finds himself having to be the “educator” for every single plank in his platform, because the public has been dumbed down with polished superficial talk and glib sound bites. However, the great beast awakens and is now rising up. So win or lose, Ron Paul may very well have changed politics in America forever.
(sorry for the long comment)

I am guessing that RP has more honor than to stoop so low when the stakes are so high for this country and fall prey to a third party attempt, his reputation would be in the category of Ross Pee-rot and I do not think it would do his family name any good.
Right now RP is well thought of, his son has a great reputation, as he does, he is a real attribute. Why would he want to ruin that kind of value by acting like his thinking is more valuble than the goal of getting the Fraud In the WH out of office.

Perot was a little different (in more ways than one 😉 in that he made his fortune off of lucrative government contracts, first with IBM then later with his own company EDS. He sold a lot of IBM mainframes in the early years (IBM’s 3000 series, such as the 3780) and developed close ties with the tech end of government, more specifically the military and Defense Dept. such as the Pentagon.

He later took many state contracts to handle Medicaid and federal contracts for handling Medicare, through his former connections from IBM. So, he was far more the insider than most folks would understand. He did have a firm grip on world trade and called it right on NAFTA (the big sucking sound as jobs left America).

Paul is in an entirely different situation though, that would defy the same outcome. I’m not so polyanna to think he could make an easy win out of running as an independent, but would fare far better than Perot because of his greater visability and 12 terms of experience.

It’s hard to put a measure on momentum, because trying to run any statistical numbers on “momentum” would be like trying to hit a moving target. There is no doubt that his momentum is on the rise, and numerous cheap shots to bring him down aren’t working (such as the very recent “first class flier” accusations). He used frequent flier miles to secure upgrades to first class, most people understand how that works. After saying all that though, we have never had a situation like this in the history of American politics, so there’s no benchmark for comparison.

We have never had a candidate jump to Indie or Libertarian with such strong support, out of one of two major parties. Because he pulls so much support from both the right and left, he could very well split votes on both parties (something discussed in Perot’s run). Possibly even equally on both sides. Given that potential, he would be a non-factor on the outcome, but would indeed continue “the message” for Rand to pick up in 2016.

He may even cause large block of voters to look closer at the (big L) Libertarian Party, and effectively add a real third party to the system. That would be truly historical. He’s developing Super PACs that could roll into Libertarins in the future and juice them up like never before.

Regardless, he has set a bar for all legislators and the president to measure up to. None can match his long record of consistency and principles but they can start getting better. Throw in a 3rd party and the competition gets even keener.

The “message” will last far longer than the “messenger”, in one form or another. For that, we can thank him, regardless of party affiliation.

This is a very thought provoking article. Although I am a supporter of Ron Paul and will vote for him I do not think he can win as a third party candidate. History has shown us that third party candidates only serve to confuse the electorate and cause the wrong outcome. Perot is a shinning example. I believe Perot had other motivations driven by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and had no intention of winning.

I personally believe that if Congressman Paul cannot win the Republican ticket, he cannot win. The real battle he has is overcoming the MSM since they isolate him and always portray him as a surprise to be that close to Romney. It will be interesting to see how the MSM reports the Republican ticket when there is only Ron Paul and Romney left standing.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that, in my opinion, has any real credibility and concern for our country. His long standing record shows his consistency. However, I truly believe voters are always duped into believing the same old garbage like mind controlled idiots. Until this is changed our country will continue to spiral down to oblivion.

As a socially liberal, but fiscally conservative person, I for one will be voting for Ron Paul. I even re-registered as a Republican so that I can vote in the Primary Election. Obama for me, and many liberals, promised a change and I believe that his wishy washy nature got the best of him. I am torn. If the Republicans would stop bringing so much religion into the mix and stop trying to win over the Evangelicals with their anti-choice and anti-gay rhetoric, then I would switch over to the Republican side for good. We need someone who is going to conquer the economy, get us out of the the mid-east’s oil stronghold and get us back to a nation that supports our very basic motto: “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Greg,
If R. Paul did run as a 3rd party candidate, what preparations would be required. Doesn’t he have to get lots of names turned in, and jump thru various hoops? Does the libertarian party already have all of this in place? Would it really be feasible for him to do this?

I for one would love to see him do it if the GOP trys to further disenfranchise, invalidate, and dismiss both Paul and his supporters. I’ve been a republican my entire life….but…hey…that could change if necessary!

Too bad that some of the die hards in the GOP still just don’t get it!

According to my understanding the libertarians have got all that in place in almost all the states, because they run someone every election cycle. The Constitution party, I believe likewise in most as well.

The possiblity of Ron Paul winning as a third party candidate are not as far fetched as you might initially think. Nelson Hultberg makes a compelling argument that’s more than realisic.

An excerpt:

“But if you take your 12% Buchanan conservatives and launch an Independent crusade for the Presidency, you will pick up about 15% from Independent voters who do not vote in GOP primaries. This gives you 27% in national polls. All that is needed for you to win the Presidency in a three-man race is 38%. That means you would need only to pick up 11% from disenchanted Democrats, which could be done with a stirring campaign and a dramatic sweep into the National TV Presidential Debates next Fall. Such a dramatic sweep could be driven home to American voters with two trenchant half-hour lectures on national TV the night before each of your debate performances in the manner of Ross Perot in 1992. Only this time you will be telling the American people about how the Demopublicans are using the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax to rob us of our freedom, our rights, and our money. You will not clone yourself to the Demopublicans like Ross did. You will offer to America a REAL choice.”

Predicting the future is something I have always wanted to be able to do. Pundits against Ron Paul are trying hard to create the future. If they read this I hope my voice and many others can be heard. Change will come, throughout history it always has, tyrants and bad governments always fall.

We can create our reality also. Start boycotting the media that acts as a propoganda industry. We also need to have much more attention to our congress and getting people from the states into office that have values and ethics like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. We dont want to have all our hope placed in Ron Paul, however.

Ron Paul is very dangerous to the status quo and he will be under a tremendous amount of pressure if elected. With the corruption of congress and federal system I am skeptical as to how much he will be able to do.

We need to focus the same attention and debate in our congressional elections coming up. There are three representatives in our state who have performed terribly and need to be disgraced and thrown out.

Many changes I hope to see will come from a closer grass roots situation in the states to resist Washington cartel dominance.Here in my state they seem ambivilent to federal actions, other states with stronger values are fighting back.

The states if united against federal actions move forward the foundation of the washington cartel will crumble.

Electing Ron Paul if anything is the symbol of the beginning of the end for the washington cartel. The end I hope will come anyway one way or another. As a nation I hope we are we smart enough and committed. To me this is what will make Amercia a great country. Lets do it.

I remember Bev Harris saying a few years back that even if the vote was rigged if enough voters voted, say for Ron Paul, that voters could overwhelm the rigged machines.

Let’s hope so & at the same time continue to call for hand counted/audited ballots.

(I’ll make the time to help do the count, it’s that important!)

Regardless, I still go vote on their machine, but more importantly I vote everyday by deciding where/how to keep my money/assets & by who I choose to do business with.

For example, if I’ve got $10,000 on deposit with a total corrupt murder’in cattle rustle’n type Wallst Bank/Insurance Co & that outfit has those funds levered 100:1, when I stop doing business with those crooks & move those funds out of their control the banks like the JP Morgue are force to unwind their 100:1/ $1,000,000: $10,000 levered trades.

Then if I can talk enough others into voting by moving their funds to support Ron Paul type positions we could literally vote those corrupt outfits right out of business.

Notice the Gov didn’t go after the Occupy Wallst Movement until just right after Occupy Wallst started telling people to close their accounts & move their money from the Wallst crooks.

As a side benefit of paying more attention to who I’m doing business with I’m amazed at the amount of cash I’m saving & generating.

Aside from having a PRIVATE GROUP in Barcelona Spain/Tampa,FL count our votes. It would take 100 million votes for Mr. Paul to be elected. In other words he would have to be the only candidate on the ballot. (see Bev Harris @ BlackBox)
Folks. As hard as it is to admit. The fix is in. Romney will get the GOP nomination and Goldman Sachs will decide if they want more Obama or Romney.
Another hint to the nomination is the State governors. The so-called Tea Party darling Nikki Haley (R) SC is endorsing Romney. Evidently she is privy of the outcome already.
In other words, the Federal Reserve Banks and thier investors have decided more wars abroad and austerity at home. And Mr. Paul does not have the funds or “army” to defend the Republic.
Whether Mr. Paul decides to go third party. He’ll still get my vote, even if those in Tampa, FL or Spain count it or not.

Oh. Another thing. Gingrich, Perry and Sanitorium are barred on State ballots like Virgina.

Whaaa?100 million is 1/3 of the total population of our country, including men, women and children. When you figure that in any given election cycle probably 60% of all eligible voters stay home on election day, added to that you have ineligible voters, children and felons, institutionalized. I think you will find that the total of the active electorate does not approach 100 million souls. I fail to see how it would take 100+% of the voters to win the election, maybe I’m just obtuse here, help me out.I mean if you had 30 mil illegals, motor voters and cemetery denizens, maybe, but?

I think Washington(both parties)is so utterly,irreversibly corrupted that they will do whatever it takes to make sure Ron P. does not upset their criminal enterprise.
How else could so many Wall Street criminal’s be walking free with so much loot and the average law abiding citizen have to worry about a possible rectum examination at the local Airport by questionable lowlife’s and degenerants ?

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.
Proverbs 29:2

I think it would be hard for anyone to lose against Obama right (head to head race) and sadly I’m not sure Romney could beat him. I think it would be the closest third party race ever if Ron Paul ran with Romney getting the least amount of votes.

Despite MSM try to ignore Ron Paul, both Democrats and Republicans fear him in the race. Even Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination; he is too weak to beat Obama. If Ron Paul joins the race as a Third Party Candidate, he will get the supports from the Independent Party, the young voters and the veterans. In addition, Paul will get many votes from the undecided voters, including many of the Democrat and Republican voters who are fed up with the President and the Do-Nothing Congress.

Paul will actually post a greater threat to Obama. Many of the people who supported Obama in 2008 are now turned to Ron Paul.

In the past, undecided voters were forced to choose between the candidates from the two Parties, also known as the Lesser of Two Evils. Many voters gave up their Third Party votes because they didn’t think their Third Party candidate would ever win. That is not the case in 2012. Ron Paul will be the strongest Third Party candidate in the U.S. history. MSM want us to believe there is no chance for Paul to win the election. However, the harder MSM suppress the news about Paul, the stronger that I feel he is the real deal in 2012.

I’m certain Paul will not run 3rd party, mostly because of son Rand’s career.
Also, why I don’t think Paul could win 3rd party, is Obama’s base. Considering race and the amount of people now dependant on the federal government for financial help I see Obama with a 30 to 35% base to start. People will usually vote their wallet, especially when the wallet is near empty.
I see Obama with 40% and Paul and Romney with maybe 30% each.
Take into consideration Obama could start another war, or some other such event it appears impossible.

Here is a really ‘off the wall’ idea that was raised in a conversation I had today with a friend on this topic.
OK, The GOP knows they need the RP support, right? What would it take? Well, being the hard core Paulbot that I am I of course said nothing! – no how, no way, right? Then my friend (a hard left kind of guy) said, “well what if he was offered the Secretary of Treasury position?” LOL at first thought, but then —-well? That would really put him in a position to fulfill his life long goal of putting a knife in the heart of the Federal Reserve now wouldn’t it? And as we all know this is the center piece of ALL the outlining issues.
Fantasy? for sure. But a fun one I thought.

I think Mr. Paul will toe the line, so that one day his son can run for president and not have to take the heat for his dad running on a 3rd party ticket. Just my theory, I personally would vote for him as a 3rd party candidate.

I have three very good reasons to vote for Ron Paul, my three granddaughters. I have always voted the party candidate and never voted for a third party candidate. I am tired of holding my nose to vote. I may be wasting my vote as the party will do its’s damned to convince anyone voting for a third party candidate. So be it, I will at least have my own personal integrity intact.

The MSM wants people to think Ron Paul only has the uneducated youth behind him. I think that is wrong. I am a senior and I know a lot of other my age and between 30 and 60 who will/would vote for Ron Paul if he ran as an alternative to the usual party hacks that are being offered up.

It’s a shame more people are unable to attain the level ofunderstanding that you exhibit. At the end of the day, once the dross is all washed away, and as Job, everything is taken from you, the only thing you can not be forced to relinquish is your integrity. As a youth I studied Confucianism as a result of the proselytizing of Charlie Chan and I discovered this truth about the oriental psyche, that regardless of your path in life if you retain your integrity your spirit will survive. If not, not so much.

Here’s a very good reason why Paul WONT run as a Third Party candidate. It would adversely affect his son Rand Paul and his future ambitions. Here’a another: It would throw the race to Obama. Dems have strict party loyalty, Repubs don’t. Third, it takes time to organize and qualify on ballots, raise money, etc. Not enough time.

They say Ron Paul will not run third party due to Rand’s future political aspirations. Poppycock. Barring SOPA, or any other freedom-stifling legislation, the two-party scamology will undoubtedly die a slow but certain death. For the most part, the rational Republicrats see this. Damn the torpedoes, the Pauls will forge ahead in the name of AMERICAN LIBERTY. Don’t buy the hype, such a move–a Ron Paul independent run–will at the least result in a solidified Rand Paul constituency in a 2016 presidential run…or at the most, a Ron Paul presidency in 2012!!!

Agreed! What could be a better entree for Rand than a Paul/Paul ticket. Not to mention a solidified platform precluding any chance of ,well shall we say,any game changing JFK type surprises from our opponents. They’re just whistling Dixie. Ron holds all the trumps.They may still pull a few tricks, but it’s all over but the shoutin’ and the cryin’. Long as we stay at the table.

That said, I do doubt at this point a third party run. There is something afoot between the Paul and Romney campaigns–which is evident in recent debates. If the field isn’t winnowed down to Paul versus Romney, as was the conceivable game plan, and Newt maintains his surge in the polls, Paul will continue strategically maneuvering to put the AWAKE MOVEMENT pieces in place. A sound, sustainable national footing of LIBERTY and TRUTH well into the future…!

A note about Perot from an Alexander Cockburn & Jeffrey St. Clair column in 2008:

“After scoring very high polling numbers in June of 1992, showing him to be in the lead over Clinton and Bush, Perot announced his withdrawal from the race, later disclosing that he didn’t want his candidacy to prompt release, by Republican operatives, of compromising photos of his daughter before her wedding. Perot didn’t re-enter the race until October 1. He talked his way into the debates and riveted the nation with his famous denunciations of free trade and laments for America’s industrial decline, which he blamed on both the major parties. Five weeks later, he won 19 per cent of the vote, thereby costing George H.W. Bush the election.”

Perot managed 19% after all that! Ron Paul is not going to jump in and out of the race. Chances are Perot could very well have won in 1992 if he had stayed continuously in the race.

Unfortunately, if Ron Paul runs as an independent he will have to run on the Libertarian ticket [or Peace & Freedom party :)] because there is no way he can get on the ballot in every state as an independent. It was a non-stop battle for Ralph Nader to get on the ballot in each state when he ran as an independent and not on the Green Party ticket. The powers-that-be put up every conceivable road-block and Nader had to spend hundreds of thousands if not over a million in that battle alone.

The trouble if Ron Paul is on the Libertarian ticket the Libertarians will howl and scream if he doesn’t promise to gut Social Security right away. Ron Paul has already said that his $1 Trillion in cuts is focused on cutting the money for foreign adventures and does not include Social Security. If Ron Paul cannot continue to re-assure people on Social Security he would be hammered to death on the issue.

BTW, if we want Ron Paul to win we need to avoid labels such as calling Ralph Nader “ultra-liberal”. When Nader ran for president I actually read what he had to say at his website and the feeling one came away with is that Ralph Nader is a true believer in America’s ability to accomplish great things. He also is aware of where the government actually works. If you go down his position list from 2000 http://www.issues2000.org/ralph_nader.htm you’ll find many positions you don’t agree with. What’s important is to read through the incredible number of issues where he is in agreement with Ron Paul.

In both cases, when Ralph Nader ran and now with Ron Paul, the best candidate is the candidate who is moral, consistent and incorruptible.

It’s a long way to the Republican convention. Ron Paul can win. We are ALL going to win because the issues he is discussing are not going to go away. People are waking up!

I don’t think Ron Paul can win as a 3rd party candidate (or be the Republican nominee). He is opposed by a very powerful special interest group, namely the pro-Israel lobby. They will use all means fair, foul, and very foul to oppose him. Instead of running as a 3rd party candidate and thereby being blamed for re-electing Obama (whether this would be true or not), he should dedicate himself to exposing how things really work in Washington. He would be more useful as a new Pete McCloskey than as a “spoiler.”

I disagree. The pro Israeli lobby is tiny though prone to dirty tricks. I believe, for instance that JFK and RFK’s insistence that Bnai Brith among others register as a foreign government’s agencies immediately prior to his Dallas trip in ’63 was the dominant factor in the resultant outcome of that trip as well as the subsequent assasination of RFK. If RFK, as attorney general would have been able to force them to register, U.S. law would have forbidden their contributing to U.S.national candidates, which would of course have obviated their raison d’etre.
Other than as an assasination threat I don’t know how much they would be able to do to keep him out of the white house. Of course they could cripple much of his agenda via their bought-and-paid-for legislators, but I also believe that the restoration of the republic and the insistence on the reinstatement of the rule of law could go a long way to crippling their agendas as well, so a certain amount of that could work to cancel each other’s power out, and you might notice a tendency for them to act less ham-handedly. It all boils down to whether you’re disposed to submit to unwarranted power.
As for how he is remembered,I honestly doubt whether he cares a fig about that, his focus is the restoration of the republic and as long as that continues I don’t think he will find that he needs to worry. In other words the adjective steadfast comes to mind. If his principled actions somehow contribute to an Obama reelection, I don’t think it would weigh on him at all. The voters and electors choose the President, not”Kooky Old” Ron Paul. I seriously doubt anyone else will blame him either. They will be too busy suffering under their real enemy, the New World Order debt through endless war feudal slavery system to think that he did other than try to reverse the inevitable. In other words, What have we got to lose?

Greg,
I am , and always have been, in Ron Paul’s camp. In fact if he would come out right now, and if he was able to convince him, announcing Judge Napolitano as VP candidate I would volunteer time for the campaign as I think it might have a chance. BUT — with that said — He must not run and split the vote.
Your statement of no differences between Romney and Obama is dangerous and wrong. Romney will be the titular head of the Republican party and hopefully will preside over a majority not only in the House but the Senate as well. Romney certainly isn’t my first choice but he did not sit in Reverend? Wright’s toxic church for 20 years and launch his career in Bill Ayers living room. Obama despises America as it is and has the disease that all Socialists have — symptom #1 — That Socialism is the best form of Government and the only reason it has not worked is that no one as smart as me has overseen it.
Clinton has made 80 million dollars in speaking over the last 7 years and not one peep from the MSM– Clinton sold the ranch to the Chinese ( think Loral) elevating their space and weapons programs by 20 years at least– and again not a word. Romney will be the candidate as long as the public realizes that the filth that is about to rain down on him is pathetic and typical of the morally degraded Democrats.
The Democrats are destroying this Country through legislation and lifetime appointed liberal judges. The Right has to regain the Senate which is priority number one and if voting for Romney requires a close pin on the nose – SO F’N be it.
Thank you

Martin,
Do you really think Romney is all that different from Obama? Please. Romney said he if FOR the NDAA and the indefinite detention of Americans. Both Obama And Romney have the same campaign donors so the bankers will keep on ripping off America without fear of Federal prosecution!!! This is why the country is in a financial tailspin. Thank you for your comment and good men can disagree.
Greg

Greg, you are on to something important. In 2008 almost all the Republicans I knew sat out the election because of Tweedle-Dumb heading the ticket. We were all tired of second rate candidates like McCain and Dole.

The rise of Ron Paul is no freak of politics. History shows that no country that debases its currency maintains its same form of government. The “planned deficits” started in the Kennedy administration, and bragged about in Arthur Schlesinger’s book “One Thousand Days”, set the stage for total debasement of the dollar. The deficits have come home to roost. Americans are starting to understand it, see the detrimental effects to their economic prospects and are looking for common sense. Among all the candidates, Ron Paul is providing it and would have my vote.

God bless all of you! It warms my heart to see so many coming around to such a higher order of understanding. For that, God bless the unfettered Internet. I do have to say that as a longtime supporter of Dr. Paul (since 1997), a Texan, a former Market Maker in various derivative products, and contractor for the U.S. Dept. of State and INR et al, I am very concerned for this incredibly courageous man’s safety. The Federal Reserve Bank (FRB), or more accurately the Level One Banks who own the FRB have a history of instigating war, civil unrest, overthrow, and murder. If the Iranian’s and Indian’s attempt to settle a relatively small OTC oil trade in gold bullion is a big enough threat to the Federal Reserve Note as global commodity settlement that our puppet government will beat the war drums and park a carrier battle group at the Straits of Hormuz while hollering about the nuclear threat of a country that doesn’t even have toilets that flush, then they will most certainly murder the good Doctor Paul if he gets anywhere near the nomination. He is old enough that they will use Ricin or some other rare natural toxin so folks will think it was just his time with stress of the campaign and such. It will probably still martyr him, but it will buy some time for the banking cartel to reform and keep pushing for the global currency without the tie to a sovereign, which they have been working toward for so long.

This may sound like unfounded crazy guy manifesto babel to some folks, but I assure you that the central banks and their shareholders have worked very hard for the better part of a century to get the authority to lend money they don’t actually have to governments and charge the entire economy interest on that money, which again, they never actually had to lend. This is the greatest scam and largest transfer of wealth perpetrated in human history, and Ron Paul represents its destruction. They will kill him. Frankly, they have waited too long already.

I am very concerned for Dr. Paul’s safety and I pray for him every day, and throughout the day when I think of his courage and heroism. I hope that all of you out there who have chosen to put principle before party, and sovereignty above empire will join me in the spiritual support of this great man. The Spirit is the only thing that can protect him as he continues to win hearts and minds.

If a tiny percentile of humanity had the slightest conception of the astounding courage Dr. Paul has exhibited in voluntarily facing down the personification of evil supreme incarnate in 30+years of service at the risk of his life, the lives of his family and his fortune, the governments of the world would bestow upon him their highest honors.
He truly is at the top of my list of our national treasures.
I also believe that it is a peril for our country that the epitome of our national dignity and posterity should be vested within the vessel of one fragile soul.
When the measure is taken of the power that is arrayed against this “candle in the wind” one is truly awestruck by the power of God that is able to overcome it, and I, too ask this power, our father, to surround Ron Paul with his archangels, that this republic may once again shine as a beacon to the world, that men, when free, may more freely aspire to join with their creator in the co-creation of a more humane and diverse existence. This election is about a lot mor than most imagine. It is about, more than anything, the very survival of Justice. Unfortunately, by virtue of her blindness, those who would have cut her purse and stolen her sword and now seek to wrest the very balance from her failing grip. Thank God we have a champion who is willing to give the “old broad” the benefit of the doubt and a shot at rehabilitation. He discerns the power of her spirit, despite the bereft appearence of her visage.
I apologise for my propensity to wax poetic, but out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Thank you for your sincere concern for and recognitionof Our hero, Ron Paul
RON PAUL 2012 VIVA LA R3VOLUTION

Paul owes it to the American public to run as a third party candidate.
If anyone besides Paul wins the Presidency, it will not matter who it is because they are all bought and owned 100% by Wall St.
There is no diference between Democrats and Republicans as Obama has clearly shown.

Since we are dealing with conjecture and ‘what-if’s’ here – what about the possibility Ron Paul runs as a Libertarian, and next fall Obama is determined to be ineligible via one of the “Natural Born Citizen” lawsuits out there currently.

The two party system will never allow any third party to get and maintain any amount of power structure. See this would be bad for business because this would open up the bidding for Congressional seats to even more money and more corruption. The US Congress has been bought and it is doing the bidding of their corporate masters. Corporate America has a lock on the congress and they know it. That is why we have seen a big push to take over as many states as they can before the people wake up and realize what is going on. The USA is in the middle of an elected coup where the people vote for two politicians who are owned by the same “system”!

Greg, I agree with you, Ron Paul and the whole enchilida. However, you must realize, even though I hope for the best, that Ron Paul cannot win for the following reasons (and I use my family as a test)1. anybody 55 plus (the greatest percent of voters) wants their entitlements. The defense industry is much larger than active duty servicemen (which I think is telling how they support Ron Paul more than all the others combined) and all they think about is their jobs. The medical establisment has a vested interest in the status quo, again high paying jobs.
Now even I hope that he would run as a third party. Just maybe economic events would jell just right, at the time of the election to benefit him. So yes, go Ron Paul, but remember “hope for the best, prepare for the worst”. Armistead Garrett

A utility banking & insurance business model could have been & still can be used to fund Social Security, Health Insurance & Student Loans.

With a Utility Bank/Insur Biz Model we could completely end this current Federal Income System & all paycheck withholdings.

For most of 200 years the USA operated without an income tax.

The gov was back then funded through Export/import taxes & excise & royalty taxes.

It could work that way again.

I’ve got more on this subject but this is enough for now.

**

More On Ron Paul

Paul Craig Roberts
Prisonplanet.com
Monday, January 23, 2012

If Ron Paul’s libertarian handlers and support base could escape their ideology, Ron Paul could be much better positioned to win the Republican nomination.

Here are some suggestions.

Ron Paul should be making the point that Social Security and Medicare are threatened by multi-trillion dollar wars that are funded by debt, by bailouts of a deregulated banking system, and by money creation to keep the banks afloat. Libertarians support deregulation, but their position has always been that deregulated industries must not be bailed out with public subsidies, much less subsidies that are so extensive that they threaten government solvency and the value of the currency.

Instead of hitting hard on the serious threat to Social Security and Medicare posed by Obama and Republican candidates for the nomination, all of whom serve Wall Street, the military/security complex, and the Israel Lobby, Ron Paul has been positioned both by his supporters and his opponents as the danger to Social Security and Medicare. This is an amazing strategic mistake by the Ron Paul campaign. more…..**

Ron Paul should absolutely run 3rd party. I mean we have nothing to loose because we will end up with Obama is RP does not get the GOP nomination. Weather he runs 3rd party or not Obama will be reelected. The Republican candidate cannot win without the RP supporters. RP might just surprise a lot of people if he did run 3rd party. I think his supporters will demand it in the end.

check out dave champions book (income tax shattering the myths) http://www.davechampionshow.com people stop feeding the beast.
ron paul knows the truth about the IRS ,and will shut them down along with the federal reserve if we can get him in to the top office.

Poll: What Do You Think?

Greg’s Favorite Sites & Articles

Archives

Archives

About

Greg is the producer and creator of Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com. The site’s slogan is “analyzing the news to give you a clear picture of what’s really going on.” The site will keep an eye on the government, your financial interests and cut through the media spin.

USAWatchdog.com is neither Democrat nor Republican, Liberal or Conservative. Before creating and producing the site, Greg spent nearly 9 years as a network and investigative correspondent. He worked for ABC News and Good Morning America for nearly 6 years. Most recently, Greg worked for CNN for shows such as Paula Zahn Now, American Morning and various CNN business shows.